# Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration Association

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 4, 2006 · 469 F.3d 1257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499310

## Case

- **Full name:** Connie A. NAGRAMPA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAILCOUPS, INC.; The American Arbitration Association, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 4, 2006
- **Citations:** 469 F.3d 1257; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29687; 2006 WL 3478345
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Clifton
- **Judges:** Schroeder, Reinhardt, Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Thomas, Graber, Wardlaw, Fisher, Gould, Tallman, Clifton
- **Cited by:** 1,134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499310

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding forum selection 9 clause was substantively unconscionable because it was “part of a contract of adhesion, it was not 10 entered into freely and voluntarily”; franchisee was “provided inadequate notice in the offering 11 circular because the circular contained misleadin…
- stating that 14 “when the crux of the complaint challenges the validity or enforceability of the agreement 15 containing the arbitration provision, then the question of whether the agreement, as a whole, is 16 unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator” but that “[w]hen…
- concluding that plaintiff did not waive her objection to arbitration via participation when her participation therein was limited to two preliminary telephone conferences and steps necessary to preserve her objections to arbitration and rights in proceeding, including filing o…
- explaining that in cases like Nghiem “where we have found waiver [of the ability to challenge the arbitrator’s ability to decide substantive arbitrability], the objecting party ha[d] participated far more extensively than [the present objecting party] did before resorting to t…
- holding that if “the district court concludes that the challenge is not to the arbitration provision itself but, rather, to the validity of the entire contract, then the issue of the contract’s validity should be considered by an arbitrator in the first instance”

## Opinion text

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that the district court properly undertook in this case to decide whether the arbitration provision in the MailCoups franchise agreement is valid and enforceable within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act. I also agree that Nagrampa did not waive her right to object to the arbitrability of the dispute. I thus concur in sections II-A and II-B of the majority opinion by Judge Wardlaw. .
I part company with the majority as to its conclusion that the arbitration provision was unconscionable under California law. I believe that the district court was correct in concluding that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable. I concur in the relevant portions of the dissents by Judge O’Scannlain (sections II-D and III) and by Judge Kozinski (section II). Like them, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499310. Public record. Not legal advice.